School of thought

Plans to shake up vocational training unveiled in the Tomlinson Report will go the way of other quickly abandoned education initiatives unless the Government starts to focus on the urgent needs of employers.

Shortly after the long-anticipated report appeared, Tony Blair performed an expert U-turn and started to pull the rug from under it. He seemed far more worried about who the changes might upset and what the new qualifications would be called than how the country was going to meet head-on the issues they are trying to address.

Employers demand radical change and courageous leadership in this area. They will take a dim view if scoring General Election points undermines the crucial changes Tomlinson and others advocate.

For too long, employers have been expected to plug the literacy and numeracy gaps left by our education system when young people arrive at their new place of work. It is a national scandal that so many school leavers cannot read, write or add properly. It is ridiculous that many employers have to address these basic deficiencies before equipping their recruits for their professional role.

However, Tomlinson is not a complete answer, largely because it will take at least a decade to implement. Again, employers will be less than impressed if the Government uses planning for Tomlinson as an excuse to avoid addressing the country’s immediate needs.

Employers are also concerned that the attention being paid to vocational qualifications could dilute the sector-specific training we desperately need. There is a disproportionate amount of interest in what the new qualifications will be called, when what interests employers is higher standards and more specific skills training to equip our future workforce.

Qualifications need to be more focused on the individual aspirations of young people and should provide clear signposts that make it easier for them to choose a vocational profession.

“The profession will welcome any reforms that make qualifications easier to understand and more coherent,” said former CIBSE president Doug Oughton at the launch of the new Industry Training and Learning Group. “In particular, we welcome a change in the world of education that will give comparable value to vocational and academic achievements.

“However, Tomlinson’s report is essentially about the qualifications framework. Even more important than the framework is what goes into it – the quality of the learning experience.

“I hope that the changes which follow Tomlinson will mean that young people leave school with a much better understanding of the maths, science and technical skills that are crucial to building services.”

For too long employers have been expected to plug the literacy and numeracy gaps left by our education system

Tomlinson proposes replacing GCSEs and A-levels with an all-embracing diploma for 14 to 19 year-olds, similar to the model that has worked in other parts of Europe. These proposals would constitute the most radical reforms to education since the end of the Second World War and begin to redress a century of ingrained prejudice against technical education.

It was proposed that while diplomas would replace qualifications (in England and Wales) including vocational qualifications, they would retain some of their content as parts of the new diploma. The diploma framework is intended to encourage and facilitate progression, stretch all abilities and recognise achievement in and beyond compulsory education, with each diploma comprising ‘core’ and ‘main’ learning at each level.

Core learning will require young people to demonstrate the basic, personal and employability skills needed for life and work. This compulsory element will include ‘functional’ mathematics and literacy as well as information communication and technology.

Main learning will form the majority of each diploma. There will be a choice of an ‘open’ diploma consisting of a mix of general and vocational subjects similar to GCSEs and A-level combinations. Alternatively, pupils will be able to choose a diploma specialising in an employment sector such as building services engineering.

Employers will, however, need assurance about how changing qualifications would raise standards in mathematics and English. Will the curriculum for the new diploma put sufficient emphasis on core literacy and numeracy learning? Will it improve training so teachers have the skills to deal competently with the issue?

The proposals for the vocational diplomas recommend rationalising the existing 5000 vocational courses into 20 broad, sector-wide pathways providing progression to the highest level. This could dilute the employment-specific nature of vocational qualifications that many employers value and assurance is needed that occupationally specific options will be retained. The new diplomas must not be used to simply mask or rename without raising standards.

Vocational routes are already widely accepted by universities as a valid alternative to A-levels. If Tomlinson is going to deliver higher skills and associated economic benefits, vocational qualifications should be available to all – not just for the less able or disaffected. The most able students must also be encouraged to consider vocational careers, which are challenging and rewarding.

This will only be achieved if young people are provided with impartial and well informed careers guidance. Teachers and careers advisors seem poorly informed about opportunities for young people and few have ever experienced careers in industry. This naturally leads to the most able choosing traditional academic routes and missing out on the industry-based alternatives.